Quality Indicators for the Care of Hearing Loss in Vulnerable Elders

Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA

BACKGROUND

While 60% of older adults have hearing loss (HL), the majority have never had their hearing tested.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate long-term clinical and economic effects of alternative adult hearing screening schedules in the USA.

DESIGN

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulating Current Detection (CD) and linkage of persons with HL to hearing healthcare, compared to alternative screening schedules varying by age at first screen (45 to 75 years) and screening frequency (every 1 or 5 years). Simulated persons experience yearly age- and sex-specific probabilities of acquiring HL, and subsequent hearing aid uptake (0.5-8%/year) and discontinuation (13-4%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated according to hearing level and treatment status. Costs from a health system perspective include screening ($30-120; 2020 USD), HL diagnosis ($300), and hearing aid devices ($3690 year 1, $910/subsequent year). Data sources were published estimates from NHANES and clinical trials of adult hearing screening.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-year-old persons in US primary care across their lifetime.

INTERVENTION

Alternative screening schedules that increase baseline probabilities of hearing aid uptake (base-case 1.62-fold; range 1.05-2.25-fold).

MAIN MEASURES

Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/year) costs and QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

KEY RESULTS

CD resulted in 1.20 average person-years of hearing aid use compared to 1.27-1.68 with the screening schedules. Lifetime total per-person undiscounted costs were $3300 for CD and ranged from $3630 for 5-yearly screening beginning at age 75 to $6490 for yearly screening beginning at age 45. In cost-effectiveness analysis, yearly screening beginning at ages 75, 65, and 55 years had ICERs of $39,100/QALY, $48,900/QALY, and $96,900/QALY, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variations in hearing aid utility benefit and screening effectiveness.

LIMITATION

Input uncertainty around screening effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

We project that yearly hearing screening beginning at age 55+ is cost-effective by US standards.

Assessing equity and quality indicators for older people – Adaptation and validation of the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) checklist for the Portuguese care context

Background

Development has promoted longer and healthier lives, but the rise in the proportion of older adults poses new challenges to health systems. Susceptibilities of older persons resulting from lower knowledge about services availability, health illiteracy, lower income, higher mental decline, or physical limitations need to be identified and monitored to assure the equity and quality of health care. The aim of this study was to develop equity indicators for the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE)-3 checklist and perform the first cross-cultural adaptation and validation of this checklist into Portuguese.

Methods

A scoping literature review of determinants or indicators of health (in)equity in the care of older people was performed. A total of 5 language experts and 18 health professionals were involved in the development and validation of the equity and quality indicators through expert opinion and focus groups. Data collected from focus groups was analyzed through directed or conventional content analysis. The usefulness of the indicators was assessed by analyzing the clinical records of 30 patients.

Results

The literature review revealed that there was a worldwide gap concerning equity indicators for older people primary health care. A structured and complete checklist composed of equity and quality indicators was obtained, validated and assessed. A significant number of non-screened quality or equity related potential occurrences that could have been avoided if the proposed indicators were implemented were detected. The percentage of non-registered indicators was 76.6% for quality and 96.7% for equity.

Conclusions

Applying the proposed checklist will contribute to improve the monitoring of the clinical situation of vulnerable older people and the planning of medical and social actions directed at this group.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03104-5.

Management of Lung Cancer in the Elderly

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-associated mortality in the USA. The median age at diagnosis of lung cancer is 70 years, and thus, about one-half of patients with lung cancer fall into the elderly subgroup. There is dearth of high level of evidence regarding the management of lung cancer in the elderly in the three broad stages of the disease including early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic disease. A major reason for the lack of evidence is the underrepresentation of elderly in prospective randomized clinical trials. Due to the typical decline in physical and physiologic function associated with aging, most elderly do not meet the stringent eligibility criteria set forth in age-unselected clinical trials. In addition to performance status, ideally, comorbidity, cognitive, and psychological function, polypharmacy, social support, and patient preferences should be taken into account before applying prevailing treatment paradigms often derived in younger, healthier patients to the care of the elderly patient with lung cancer. The purpose of this chapter was to review the existing evidence of management of early-stage, locally advanced disease, and metastatic lung cancer in the elderly.

Health maintenance in older adults: combining evidence and individual preferences

There is increasing interest in maintaining health and delaying disability for older adults as this population segment expands. And instead of focusing on a traditional disease-specific approach to health maintenance, there is an ongoing shift to a patient-centered approach, and defining outcomes based on the older adults' goals. In this approach, their goals and preferences are central, and other factors such as their health status and prognosis help determine which goals may be realistic. These subjective goals and objective characteristics are then balanced with the risks, benefits, and harms of established evidence-driven health-maintenance recommendations. Hence, older adults share their goals and preferences with clinicians; while clinicians share information on risks, benefits, harms, and uncertainties of existing health-maintenance recommendations, and help guide the older adult through how existing evidence can respond to their health goals and preferences. In this article, the concept of patient-centered care in the context of health maintenance for older adults is discussed; and health maintenance recommendations for older adults are reviewed.

Aging and disease prevention

This article reviews evidence-based recommendations for geriatric prevention disciplines and topics including health behaviors (e.g., smoking cessation, physical activity), metabolic disorders, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, immunizations, depression, the promotion of independence,and polypharmacy. Recommendations for both the one-on-one, clinic-based setting and for community-wide initiatives are covered for each topic, as appropriate.